A doctor who is seeking to prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting him on more than 200 charges of sexual and indecent assault against 43 female patients will be seven years before the criminal justice system by next May, the High Court has been told.
The court has already heard that a Garda search of Dr James Barry's home and surgery uncovered a number of video tapes showing naked female patients.
Dr Barry (76), Lauriston Lodge, Glanmire, Co Cork, who is facing 237 charges, claims there has been gross and inexcusable delay in initiating the prosecutions.
He alleges a pattern of abuse of process, fundamental unfairness amounting to oppression and a denial of his constitutional rights.
His passport was impounded in 1997 and he must report weekly to the Garda. Dr Barry said he was unaware of any reason why the offences, the earliest of which is alleged to have occurred in the 1960s and the latest some years ago, have not been prosecuted before this.
In an affidavit in court yesterday, Dr Barry said the initiation of the prosecutions in April 1996 did not have any basis in evidence.
The DPP is opposing Dr Barry's judicial review application for court orders preventing his prosecution and denies any gross or inexcusable delay in initiating the proceedings against the doctor.
The High Court has already been told that a number of the women who have complained about Dr Barry to the authorities have also made complaints to the Medical Council while others have taken civil actions.
The doctor's action first began two years ago but was adjourned in March 2000 after a number of cases with legal issues similar to Dr Barry's case went to the Supreme Court for consideration. Those proceedings concluded last year and the hearing of Dr Barry's challenge has now resumed before Mr Justice O'Neill.
Yesterday, Mr John White SC, for Dr Barry, said it was essential that any reason for the delay in prosecuting his client should be proved in evidence.
In none of the affidavits filed by the State in these proceedings was any reasons given for such a delay, he said.
By next May, his client would be seven years before the criminal justice system.
There were ample legal precedents for a trial involving lengthy delays not to be allowed to proceed, even if prejudice was not established against the accused person, Mr White said.
There had been no precise identification of what it was his client was supposed to have done wrong.
The action continues today.